1.1. Indo-Uralic

One of the most promising macro-language proposals nowadays is Indo-Uralic (IU). This language family was traditionally considered formed as Indo-European (IE) and Uralo-Yukaghir (Kortlandt 2010), but it seems likely that the greatest similarities between Uralic and Yukaghir are due to late areal contacts, while early loanwords point to close contacts between Uralic and Indo-European (Häkkinen 2012).

The latest population genetic research has made it still more evident that the relationship of Proto-Yukaghir (PYuk) with Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and Proto-Uralic (PU) must be considered within the framework of an ancient Eurasian Proto-Indo-Uralic (PIU) community, hence the need to establish Yukaghir, if genetically related to Indo-Uralic, as a third independent branch, which is supported by its independent phonetic development (Hyllested 2009). The relationship of Indo-Uralic with other Asian languages, especially with Altaic, into a Eurasian group has also been proposed as quite likely (Kortlandt 2010).

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the reconstructed Indo-Uralic evolution in comparative grammar, divided into four main stages. It also includes an initial hypothetical ‘Nostratic’ stage above (languages marked by solid double lines), informed by internal reconstruction and typological similarities.

Regular phonetic equivalences in shared ancient vocabulary between Indo-European and Uralic not only speak in favour of a common group, but the specifics of their evolution may be partly explained if we “think of Indo-European as a branch of Indo-Uralic which was transformed under the influence of a Caucasian substratum” (Kortlandt 2002). Population genetics has made it obvious that a Caucasian substratum (probably driven by exogamy and absorption of a previous population of the Caucasus or the nearby steppes) affected both, Uralic- and Indo-European-speaking communities, but probably the influence was earlier and stronger on the latter, which in turn affected the genetic composition of the former—but less so its pronunciation—due to successive migration waves.

There are two ways of seeing the close relationship of Proto-Indo-Anatolian (or Middle Indo-European) and Uralic: either one considers both to derive from a common Proto-Indo-Uralic trunk from which they split, or they began as different languages that converged due to contacts. To complicate things further, the first option does not include the second one, and may in fact explain the similarities of Uralic and Indo-European over Yukaghir (Figure 1). Based on the current archaeological and genetic data, it is likely that the Neolithic Pontic-Caspian steppes represented the Proto-Uralic community to the west (Mariupol) and the Proto-Indo-European community to the east (Samara-Orlovska), already separated during the 6th millennium BC; before, during and after which period they influenced each other with successive population movements.

We will assume in this paper an ancient genetic relationship—that is, that Early Proto-Indo-European is in fact Proto-Indo-Uralic—which is supported by the initial formation and continued similar genetic admixture in the Eneolithic steppe. By the time of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka expansion at the end of the 5th millennium, though, they were already two different, unintelligible languages.

The following is potential translation of Schleicher’s fable into Proto-Indo-Uralic:

ɣeu̯e –luɣit

ɣeu̯eneχesenχu̯alχni

luɣii̯ ɣokwe;

u̯iχe χauɠam u̯egim u̯egent,

u̯iχemege luɠim,

u̯iχeu̯iχrem suχeluɠent.

u̯eku̯eɣeu̯eluɣii̯:

“kerd cemtemi,

u̯iχrem u̯ainɗentluɣii̯ χaɠant.”

u̯eku̯etluɣit:“χeule, ɣeu̯e!

cemtemekerdu̯ainɗent,

u̯iχre, u̯aiχi,ɣeu̯ei χu̯alχni

su paχu̯ëu̯esimdeχe,

ɣeu̯ei χu̯alχnineχese.”

i χeuletɣeu̯e χanɠambuɠe.

Tentative reconstructions of the vocabulary used are as follows (those marked ** are tentatively reconstructed based on indirect data[i])

· PIU *ɣeu̯e ‘sheep (?)’ → PU *keu̯i, ‘female of wild animal’ ~ PIA ɣweu̯is ‘sheep’ (Hyllested 2009). PFU *u-či ‘sheep’, which has been related to PIE root ɣwu-, would need to be explained as a more recent loanword due to the lack of laryngeal traces, if it is related at all.

· As a common word for ‘horse’, which in this period of Neolithisation was probably considered as mere cattle, may be found in PUg *luu̯V ‘horse’ < PU *luɣë ~ PIA *leuH ‘cut off, separate’, extended as PIA *luHp- ‘hide, skin, flay’ found widespread. A more specific ‘cattle (sheep, cow, goat…)’ in Cel. *lāpego-, Bal. *luop-, Alb. lope, and also possibly behind Finn. lupo ‘mare’. Therefore, it seems that verb PIU *luɣe ‘cut off; skin’, and verb and noun PIU *luɣi ‘(domesticated) animal’, could hypothetically be traced back to this stage, although the precise dialectal evolution is obscured.

o Another, earlier alternative would be to consider horse as large game, included in PIU **elV- ‘deer’ → PF *ältV (cf. Saami al’do, altō; Mord. elde, ildä, äldä) ~ PIA *el-n-, *el-k-, cf. also Kartvelian *elV (cf. Svan ilw, il, hil), Altaic *ĕlV. The lack of a specific ancestral name for horse, the use of this root for ‘horse’ in Mordovian, and the appearance of multiple innovative names in PIE with an epithetic origin may suggest an original shared root for big herbivores, such as deer or elks.

· For wool, PIU **χu̯alχ-ni→PIA *χu̯(e)lh-n- should be proposed, which would correspond to PU **kulk-i? If it is a loanword from NE Caucasian *ƛ̱:u̯ähnɨ (Starostin 2009), such a borrowing should have happened before the separation of Proto-Anatolian from PIA. This should be distinguished from PFU *kulk-i-/*kulk-ë- ‘move, go, wander’ ~ PIA *kwelH- ‘stir, move around, wander’ < PIU *ku̯elχ-e (Koivulehto 1991).